Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Parfit's impersonal reformulation of contractualism is su... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Parfit's impersonal reformulation of contractualism is superior to Scanlon's original formulation for the purposes of the convergence argument.

    ConsequentialismNo other argument is better
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Scanlon's original contractualism allows an individual to reject optimific principles whenever those principles place a greater burden on her than her favoured principle places on any other single individual.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This individual-complaint-based rejection permits departures from utilitarianism that the convergence argument cannot accommodate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Parfit's impersonal formulation allows others to reject a principle on the grounds that it fails to maximise everyone's well-being, not merely on individual-complaint grounds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scanlon's individual-complaint structure is not a defect but a principled feature: it embeds the separateness of persons that impersonal aggregation systematically violates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Parfit's impersonal reformulation, by permitting rejection on grounds of aggregate welfare, collapses into a form of consequentialism, defeating the purpose of a distinctively contractualist convergence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A convergence argument that succeeds only by abandoning contractualism's core commitments demonstrates rivalry between theories, not genuine convergence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scanlon explicitly designed the individual-complaint threshold to block the utilitarian move of sacrificing one person for aggregate gains, as detailed in 'What We Owe to Each Other' (1998).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Parfit's reformulation removes this threshold, meaning the convergence it achieves is asymmetric: contractualism is revised toward consequentialism, not vice versa, making 'superiority' question-begging.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    ConsequentialismNo other argument is better

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility3 linked

    Related

    A convergence argument that succeeds only by abandoning contractualism's core co...Parfit's impersonal formulation allows others to reject a principle on the groun...Parfit's impersonal reformulation, by permitting rejection on grounds of aggrega...Parfit's reformulation removes this threshold, meaning the convergence it achiev...
    +4 moreShow less
    Scanlon explicitly designed the individual-complaint threshold to block the util...Scanlon's individual-complaint structure is not a defect but a principled featur...Scanlon's original contractualism allows an individual to reject optimific princ...This individual-complaint-based rejection permits departures from utilitarianism...

    Similar

    The convergence argument adopts a more impersonal formulation of contr...94%The convergence argument deploys impersonal contractualism88%Any impersonal reformulation of contractualism is much more demanding ...87%The convergence argument is of limited relevance to contractualists wh...87%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: contractualism
    View source passageHide passage
    We must turn, then, to those cases where the optimific rule consequentialist principles do instruct us to provide the smaller benefits to many others. Here, the convergence argument must deny that the solitary individual can reasonably reject the optimific principles. This is where Parfit’s ‘improvements’ on contractualism are vital to the convergence argument. As originally formulated, contractualism departs from utilitarianism by allowing the individual to reject the optimific principles whene
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit